The Supreme Court justice, a liberal who has reached icon status for her many young followers, was at Stanford University on Monday night for a talk on the meaning of life when a student in the audience asked her what she’d like to change about society.

She offered that there are “some things I would like to change, one is the Electoral College,” without providing more details. She seemed like she was about to offer a caveat to that suggestion — “But that would…” she started — before she was interrupted by applause.

How does a scholar of the Constitution not understand the brilliance of, or importance of the Electoral College?

How does she not understand that the Electoral College prevents mob rule via population centers?

President Donald Trump, of course, was elected with an Electoral College majority but trailed Hillary Clinton in the popular vote. Ginsburg was widely criticized last year for airing her concerns about Trump in an interview and saying that she expected Clinton to win the election; she later apologized.

Friendly reminder that Ginsburg – against all tradition of SCOTUS staying out of presidential elections and politics in general – decided to get political last year and comment on then-candidate Donald Trump’s potential presidency –

“I can’t imagine what this place would be — I can’t imagine what the country would be — with Donald Trump as our president,” Ginsburg said. “For the country, it could be four years. For the court, it could be — I don’t even want to contemplate that.”

Is it any wonder how the culture has changed when someone can sit on the highest court in the land and disregard the basic tenants of the Constitution they are supposed to uphold?